some funds. you proposed a soda tax, it was fought and apparently defeated by the beverage industry for lack of a better term. what does that say more broadly about as congress looks at ways to build support for tax cuts, right now everybody is talking about, we're going to lower the corporate tax rate at 5%, the top tax rate to 25% and then we're going to close tax expenditures, the mortgage interest deductions, these deductions we're accustomed to. it seems like in your experience it shows that it's hard to get rid of a privileged position. >> i signed up two proposals. one was the sugar, sweet and beskradge tax and the other was property tax. after a lot of debate and after a lot of debate and discussion, 12 hours that day, ultimately chose to raise property taxes. the sugar, sweet and beverage did not come up for a vote. so that was not defeated, it

just didn't get there. but there are very powerful special interests working morning, noon and night, full page ads, intimidation, contributions, all kinds of stuff going on. this is the realm of everyone likes service, no one wants to pay for it. this was specifically for education. it was not for our city budget. so we either want to have a good education system or we don't and i don't think that the industry was going to fall apart becaused on this particular proposal. the city, the state and the country will fall apart if we don't invest in education. so that's what i'm concerned about at this point in time. >> is there a lesson in that effort? i suspect once we start moving here in washington on closing the mortgage interest deduction, cadillac health plans, etc., you're going to see the same kind of thing on a bigger, broader scale. >> every program has an interest and every program has a special interest. people like change as long as it doesn't affect them. the moment you try to change something, the moment you try to close something, stop doing something, that interest will

pop up and that's when the politics starts. >> would your experience have taken it to the people? would have that worked on a federal level? >> i would like to think it would. having national federal elections is a complex thing but in general i like the theory. i think there's a disconnect between the american citizen and the taxation that takes place in washington. i don't feel the plern public feel like they're a part of the decision making as far as how their tax dollars are spent or at the rate which they're taxed. >> perception is that we're overtaxed. when you look at the data we're undertaxed yet people don't feel that. >> people -- >> federally. >> people are thinking individually and i don't think they necessarily differentiate between a local state and a state tax and federal tax. they know they could be better off in general. when you're unploith employed or underemployed, the idea that you're undertaxed is not going to go very far. and i don't think people necessarily have a good idea. they know what they're doing and

that's how they're going to react. >> you look at your stub and it says, well, this is what i was paid and this is what i'm taking home. now, somebody just took a whole lot of my money. local, state, federal, it doesn't matter. someone just took money out of my pocket and i'm mad about it. that's what's really going on. >> federal tax, you can sort of say where we're at? are americans taxed enough? taxed too much? taxed about right? >> i would like to see a consumption tax or a flat tax. i think -- >> to replace the current -- >> yes, i would rather we get rid of the entire system, get rid of the i.r.s. entirely. but i think we need a consumption tax. that's how i'd like to see the taxation take place at the federal level. >> i'd like to see more fair nnts tax system. we have the big, huge debate i guess tail end of last year about the tax package and keeping multimillionaire, billionaires, folks who were not even looking for a tax cut, the whole debate around extending

the president bush tax cuts. again, you rarely run into the person who says, i have to have the extension of that tax cut, i'm making $5 billion and i can't handle it. it's silly. you have other bad things that were going to happen. i think there are a bunch of folks at the top who could handle a little more and a little more tax fairness. >> do you agree with him? that the taxes on the top end are may be a little bit silly? >> no. that's why i like the consumption tax. i don't think earnings should be taxed at different rates. if someone's willing to work 16 hours a day and they make more money they shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than someone who is willing to work eight hours a day. i work from the time i get up to the end of the day. i have a private sector job and a public sector job, i've never seen "dancing with the stars" but i'm sure there are a lot of people who make their life decisions based on having that free time.

i choose not to. i don't think the tax rate for people who work extremely long hours should be a higher percentage. a consumption tax takes away from some of those issues. >> mayors here in washington, there's a lot of talk about budget reduction and deficit reduction. where in your budget could you see cutting to both of you? >> i have to tell you, over the past 2 1/2 years, we've had to close a $2.4 billion, five-year plan gap. we have to do five-year plans in philadelphia. we've cut in every department and agency in our city goof. there's only so much cutting you can do. that's why we have tax increases. there's always trimming you can do but you risk the overall long-term health of your city. and so we've actually started to invest in our budget, hopefully it will pass this week in city council, i'm putting 120 folks in a police class.

i'm making more investments in public safety and literacy and parks and recreation and those areas. so i think this is actually a time of investment. while at the same time managing our work force, reducing the size of the government, continuing to find efficiencies where we can, but i'm not looking to make massive cuts in our budget. we have a city government to run. and you can only do so much by cutting. >> i'd like to see social programs trimmed back, the defense programs trimmed back, i'd like to see more money going into infrastructure. >> but as far as your city budget, where could you see cutting it? >> we're growing. we have double-digit sales tax growth right now. we're in boom time. >> time for one more question. kevin. >> i think going back to this idea of the great federal retreat. if in fact we get this deep cut in spending that a lot of people think may be coming, that seems like the option is you guys are going to be the guy who get the finger for taking money out of people's checks because you're going to have to find another way to make up this gap.

how concerned are you about having to basically it's going to cost shift to you and how will you deal with it? you're boom time so it's easier for you. >> i can't mantle if year in declining revenue and had to come up with other opportunities. comes down to public safety. that's where our money goes. 2/3 of our money goes to public safety. if you start squeezing local governments, you're going to see fewer police officers and fewer firefighters. that's the bottom line. >> that is the bottom line. yes, we are very concerned about further significant federal reduction, not only on the usual services that we provide but again in programs like cdbg, like homes, a number of other federal projects, you'll start to see cuts in areas where people have not seen them before because these funds are external to our general budgets. >> michael nut second quarter mayor of philadelphia, mick cornett is the mayor of oklahoma city.

kevin hall, lisa mascaro, thank you all for being on news maker d. >> thank you, thanks for having us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> defense secretary robert gates at a senate hearing on the president's 2012 budget request. >> c-span's coverage of the national cable telecommunication association's 2011 cable show continues today at 5:15 p.m. eastern. f.c.c. chairman is interviewed by former f.c.c. chairman powell who heads the ncta. then at 6:30, a look ahead to next year's presidential election with former obama white house senior advisor and former republican national committee chairman. >> the times sort of ordered the world. when i was growing up.

>> page one, producer and director andrew rossi looks at the changing newspaper industry and takes an inside look at "the new york times" through the eyes of the staff. >> i came into it without a grand sort of sense of what the solutions are for tradition alameda. i came in with a desire really just to observe. >> he'll talk about his new documentary tonight on c-span's "q&a." c-span has launched a new easy to fave gate website for politics and the 2012 presidential race. with the latest c-span events from the campaign trail, bio information on the candidate, twitter feeds and facebook updates from candidates and political reporters and lynx to c-span media partners in the states. visit us at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> agents from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives testified this week that they were forced to stop surveillance of illegal gun

smuggling along the u.s.-mexico border as part of a government operation known as fast and furious, along with several phoenix field agents, we heard it from family members of a slain border patrol agent. weapons linked to the operation were found at the crime scene where he was killed last year in arizona. this house service site ker hearing runs just over four hours.

>> the committee will come to order. we exist to secure two fundamental principles, first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. and, second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights.

our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watch dogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. the mission of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearmses is to protect our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations and the illegal use and trafficking of firearms. since the gun control act of 1968 the a.t.f. has been organized as a unique law enforcement agency that americans could trust to reduce the illegal transfer of guns into the hands of criminals. today's hearing concerns a breach that have trust has thank has left countless innocent mexican citizens and at least one federal board par petroleum

agent dead. in 2009 the a.t.f. began allowing straw purchasers to walk guns into mexico. believing that this initiative would help them track the use of firearms by higher ups within the mexican drug cartels, guns -- excuse me, guns instead were being seized and allowed to cross the mexican border without the knowledge of the mexican government. this effort failed. over strong objections of the a.t.f. field agents, the program continued and approximately 2,000 ak-47's and drivetifics and some .50 caliber sniper rifles and others and 10,000 or more rounds of live ammunitions went into the arsenals of the mexican drug lords.

despite these strong objections by field agents, operation fast and furious continued. and not only did it continue, but those at the highest level of a.t.f. showed great interest in the program. a document displayed on the screen now shows that two of the most senior leaders in a.t.f., acting director kenneth melson and acting deputy director billy hoover, were being briefed weekly on fast and furious. the documents show that both melson and hoover were keenly interested in the case and updates. a second document shows deputy assistant director for field operations, william mcmahonen, was so excited about fast and furious that he received special briefing on the program in phoenix scheduled a mere 45 minutes after his plane landed.

a third and perhaps the most disturbing document indicates that acting director melson was very much in the weeds with operation fast and furious. after a detailed briefing on the program at the a.t.f. field division, acting director melson had a plethora of follow-up questions that required additional research to answer. and as documents indicate, mr. melson was interested even in receiving the i.p. address for hidden cameras located inside cooperating gun shops. with this information acting director melson was able to sit at his desk in washington and himself watch a live feed of straw buyers entering the gun stores and purchasing dozens of ak-47 variants. earlier this month the mexican government reported that more than 34,000 lives have been lost

in the 4 1/2 years. and scores of others remain missing. last year 111 u.s. citizens were killed in mexico which has been the most violent year in the drug war's history, according to the u.s. state department. when senator grassley, who we welcome here today, and i first learned about operation fast and furious earlier this year, we were both shocked that such a brutal and reckless and blatantly reckless program had ever been conceived, authorized or executed by federal law enforcement. candidly at first i believed that it had to be as it was being alleged, an operation that was a few loose cannons and could not have possibly been properly briefed. last night senator grassley and i released a joint report from the investigation entitled,

operation fast and furious accounts of the a.t.f. agents. after these accounts, after the many depositions that have been taken, the witnesses that have come forward, the whistleblowerers, if you will, it is now clear, this was not rogues at a local level, just the opposite. what we find is that people at the local level overwhelmingly objected to this program but were assured that it was approved at the highest levels. today we will hear from the family of agent terry about how fast and furious devastated their lives. and we will hear from a.t.f. agents who saw the risk, opposed the program and have come forward to tell the american people what happened. the american people have a right to know the facts about operation fast and furious and congress has a responsibility to find and reveal those facts. thus far, more than 30

democratic house members have joined senator grassley and myself in calls for the truth. i hope this will continue to be a bipartisan effort. i believe that in spite of slowness to react by the administration, there has now become a focus on getting the truth out in a more timely fashion, allowing the families to understand how it happened and hopefully working together with senator grassley and this committee to ensure it never happens again, that includes holding those whose judgment was so poor accountable. and with that i recognize the ranking member for his opening statements. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i thank you, mr. chairman, for homeding this hearing. i'd like to start by saying a few words directly to the members of the terry family who are here today. over the past week my family suffered a horrific tragedy that in some ways is similar to your own.

nobody can really know how that feels until they go through it themselves. on the one hand, you want the criminals who did this to be brought to justice as fast as possible. you want them punished for what they did, for who they took from you. on the other hand, that's after the fact. it simply will not bring them back. so, you always want answers. you want to know whether something could have been done to prevent their death. and you want to prevent it from happening to anyone else in the future. i want you -- i want to tell you that i know how you feel. and want to help as much as i can. of course we want the prosecutors to succeed in bringing the perpetrators to justice. you also deserve direct and straightforward answers from your government. working together we can and must achieve both of these goals. and so i thank you for being

here today. now, let me welcome senator grassley. your reputation as a defender of good government transcends party lines. i've always been impressed by your determination and i welcome you here today. you said something in your statement that -- in your written statement that i totally agree with and i want to reiterate. you said, any attempt to retaliate against them, speaking of the a.t.f. officers, for their testimony today would be unfair and unwise and unlawful and i am here to say that i've always taken that position and i share that view with you and i will work with you to make sure that does not happen and i'm sure it won't. let me also welcome the a.t.f. agents who are here to provide their testimony. it is not easy to testify before congress under normal circumstances, but it is even more difficult when you are testifying about allegations involving your own agency. that's tough. nevertheless i know you are here today because you want to improve this process.

finally, let me welcome mr.wise from the justice department -- mr. weise from the justice department. this will not be an easy hearing for you either but i know that you too are here because you want to improve this process. we look forward to talking with you about ways we can meet both the department's obligations for the prosecution and the committee's obligations for oversight. we thank each and every one of you for your service to the country. we will have tough questions today but you all deserve our courtesy and respect. on the substance of today's hearing, the allegations that have been made are very troubling. and new information we have attained raises additional concerns about the role of various actors involved in these incidents. based on the interviewed committeed -- conducted by the committee so far and the documents we have reviewed to date, i have two concerns i would like to explore. first, we will hear testimony that surveillance of suspected straw purchasers was

discontinued repeatedly, seemingly for no reason. so agents could return to gun stores to start over with new isn'ts -- suspects. the phoenix group hailing this investigation was tiny with only three to seven a.t.f. agents. although other officers and agencies were involved, the allegation is that these scarce resources were not used appropriately. second, we will hear testimony that specific individuals in the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix refused to prosecute legitimate and promising gun cases involving straw purchasers. this gives me great concern. it is not clear whether this reluctance was based on negative court decisions, inadequate resources or other issues, but one thing is clear. the allegations relating to this particular office span several years and several administrations. i want to make two additional points about today's hearing. this weekend chairman issa stated on national television

that this committee's investigation in these hearings are not about finding the facts. he said, and i quote, this is not a discovery process of what happened. we know what happened. end of quote. with all due respect, i strongly disagree. we do not know all the facts. we still have much to learn in this ongoing investigation and we should not rush to judgment. finally, no legitimate examination of this issue will be complete without analyzing our nation's gun laws. which allow tens of thousands of assault weapons to flood into mexico from the united states every year, including .50 caliber sniper rifles, multiple a.k.a. variants and scores of others, some of them landing in neighborhoods like mine, the one i respect in baltimore. when mexican president calderone addressed congress in may, he pleaded for us to stop fueling a full-scale drug war with

military-grade assault weapons. in order to explore these issues further today, i'm exercising my right under the rules, mr. chairman, of the house for a minority day of hearings with several witnesses who will testify about these issues in great detail. i do not think it was necessary to call these witnesses for today's hearing but i will work with the chairman on scheduling these hearings in the near future. finally let me say this, a.t.f., special agent said something in his written statement that we all need to take note of, mr. chairman. he says these words. as a career law enforcement officer, who has had to investigate the deaths of police officers, children and others at the hands of armed criminals, i was and continue to be horrified and this is the piece think a want us to concentrate on. i believe that these firearms will continue to turn up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. for years to come. with that, mr. chairman, i yield

back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now -- members may have seven days to submit opening statements and extraneous materials for the record. we now recognize our first panel . the distinguished senator, charles grassley, is the ranking member of the senate committee on judiciary. in that role i have an opportunity to work with the senator on patent issues and many other issues of law enforcement. but today the senator is here to speak about a joint investigation that has spanned many months and ultimately has consumed a great deal of the senator's personal time and attention. and i thank you for being here, your entire written statement will be placed in the record and you're recognized. >> these important hearings and for the great work that you and your staff have done in your

constitutional responsibility of oversight. i'm grateful to agent brian terry's family for being here today and wish to express my sympathy for their loss. i hope that we can get the terry family the answers that they deserve. i also want to thank the brave people who are testifying from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. these federal agents. i know that they're here to tell the unvarnished truth. i also know that that can be very tough since they still work for the a.t.f. these agents already risk their lives to keep us safe. they shouldn't have to risk their jobs as well. and continues to highlight what congressman cuminnings highlighted from my statement, any attempt to retaliate against them for their testimony today would be unfair, unwise and unlawful. and let me add to what congressman cummings said, it

would be a personal affront to this senator. when i became ranking member of the judiciary committee in january, this was the first oversight issue to land on my desk. several other senators' offices contacted my office to pass along these allegations about an a.t.f. case called operation fast and furious. at first the allegations sounded too shocking to believe. but sadly they turned out to be true. a.t.f. is supposed to stop criminals from trafficking guns to mexican drug cartels or i guess anyplace else. instead the a.t.f. made it easier for alleged cartel middlemen to get weapons from u.s. gun dealers. agents were actually ordered to stand by and watch these middlemen, these straw purchasers, buy hundreds upon hundreds of weapons.

agents warned that any action -- inaction could lead to tragedy, but management didn't want to listen. we will hear from some of those agents today and hear it from their point of view. inaction would be bad enough. but a.t.f. went even further. a.t.f. encouraged gun dealers to sell to straw buyers, emails proved that at least one dealer worried prophetically about that risk. he wrote to a.t.f. about his concerns that a border patrol agent might end up facing the wrong end of one of those weapons. a.t.f. supervisors told the dealer, don't worry, so the agents said temperatures it was a bad idea -- so the agents said it was a bad idea and the gun dealers said it was a bad idea. who thought it was a good idea?

why did this happen? congress deserves answers to these questions. the president said it didn't authorize it, that he didn't authorize it, and that the attorney general didn't authorize it. they have both admitted that, quote-unquote, a serious mistake may have been made. there are a lot of questions and a lot of investigationing to do. but one thing has become clear -- investigating to do. but one thing has become clear already. this was no mistake. it was a conscious decision by senior officials, it was written down. it was briefed all the way up to washington, d.c. according to an internal briefing paper, operation fast and furious was intentionally designed to, quote, allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, end of quote. why would the a.t.f. do such a

thing? well, the next line in the brief paper tells us. it was, quote, to further the investigation and allow for the identification of an additional co-conspirators, end of quote. very clearly, that was the goal. the purpose of allowing straw buyers to keep buying was to find out who else might be working with them, who else might be in their network of gun traffickers. of course, that assumes that they are part of a big sophisticated network. that kind of assumption can cause one to start with the conclusion and then work backward looking for a fax that fit the case. until you figure out that you have the cart before the horse,

you probably will not get anywhere. professor of criminology recently published an article in "the wall street journal" called 'the myth of gun trafficking.' according to his study of national crime data, atf analysts only had 15 operations each year that involved more than 250 guns. according to his study, the typical trafficking operation involves fewer than 12 guns. so, why would the atf make it a priority to identify large networks of traffickers? again, why would senior leadership decide to explicitly elevate that gold above the atf traditional work of seizing

weapons that were illegally purchased. on october 26, 2009, e-mails indicate there was a meeting a senior law enforcement officials at our justice department. it appears to have included the heads of every law enforcement component of the department including directors of the fbi, the dea, and the atf. it also included the u.s. attorney's for all the southwest border states, the director of the organized crime drug enforcement task force, and the chairman of the attorney general's advisory committee. it sounds like a pretty big important meeting, doesn't it? on the agenda at the meeting was a document describing the department's strategy for combating mexican cartels. attackingion called '

the southbound flow of firearm'' it says "merely seizing firearms through interdiction will not stop fire arms trafficking to mexico. must identify, investigate, and eliminate the sources of illegally traffic to firearms and the networks that transport them." the message in that document is pretty clear, isn't it? trying to identify the networks of traffickers is more important than seizing weapons. this document was transmitted to the head of the phoenix steel division on october 27, 2009. four days later, the phoenix feel the division began investigating yuriel patino on suspicion of being involved in a

drug trafficking ring. 10 days after that, patino was assigned his own case number for it in the first 24 days that the atf was on to him, patino bought 34 guns from dealers cooperating with the atf. that is nearly three times more than the typical gun trafficking operation according to the study in "the wall street journal." but that was just the beginning. since the dealers were cooperating, atf received notices of each purchase right away. analysts entered the serial numbers into the 80th gun databases usually within days of the purchase. on november 20, one of those 34 guns that patino bought turned up in mexico 14 days after he bought it in phoenix. atf learned of the recovery through a hit in a suspect gun

dead a base on november 24. that same day, p [atino brought another man into a cooperating gun dealer and it bought five more guns. atf had real-time notice from the dealer and agents raced to the store to follow them. but they arrived too late. over the next six weeks, a vila bought 13 guns. the dealers notified the 80th of each purchase right away. analysts notified the data base within two days of purchase. yet eight t f did nothing to deter or interrupt -- atf did nothing to deter or interrupt the purchase. avila purchase three more ak-47-

type weapons. atf put the serial numbers in the dead at best but they did nothing to stop avila and patino. 11 months later, two of the rivals were recovered at the sign -- at the site of agent terry's murder. avila beach system of rigid purchased of the 34 arms, but patino purchased another 100. atf noted each and every purchase. they talk about five days to enter the serial numbers in the atf database. but atf often have real time or even advance notice of the purchases from the dealers. atf even specifically approved a particular transaction. i will give you an example. in august, 2010, a gun dealer cooperating with the atf asked

for guidance. patino wanted 20 more weapons but the dealer only had four in stock. the dealer told atf that if he were to sell the guns, he would have to obtain the additional 16 specifically for this purpose. an atf supervisor road back that our guidance is that we would like you to go through with the request an order additional firearms. at this point, atf already knew that he had bought 673 guns from cooperating dealers and that many have already been recovered time scenes. i want to be clear -- we don't know for sure whether this particular order was actually filled for these additional 16 guns. however, these new e-mails support what agents and dealers have been telling us for many

months. according to them, dealers identified atf when any of the straw purchasers bought guns either before, during, or shortly after the sale. we don't know what the exact totals are but we know that the suspect "data base had at least 1880 guns related to this case. at least 30 of them were high- power, 50-caliber rifles. the straw purchasers bought 212 guns in just six days, december, 2009. 70% of all guns in the database were bought by just five straw purchasers. if atf agents had been allowed to stop just those five buyers, most of the guns in this case would not have fallen into the wrong hands.

finally, i want to say something about the politics of gun control. this investigation is not about politics. this is about getting the facts. that is what constitutional responsibility of oversight is all about. that is the checks and balances of government. no matter what side of that issue you are on, the facts here should be disturbing. there will be plenty of time for both sides to argue about policy implications of all this at some point but i hope that we can do that at another day. is all about these agents not being allowed to do their job. today is about the terry family and their search for the truth. too often, we want to make everything about politics. we pick sides of only listen to what we want to hear. at least for today, let's just listen to these agents and let's

just listen to this family and hear what they have to say. ands hear their stories hear it loud and clear. lets them work together, get answers for this family and the other families who may have suffered. it is time to get to the truth and hold our government accountable. the public's business should be public. the public's right to know and with that, that accountability. that is the checks and balances of our government and that is what congressional oversight is all about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator, for taking so much time out of your busy schedule to testify today. as we set up for the next panel, we'll take a short recess.

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

the hearing will come to order, please. >> the hearing will come to order, please. we will now recognize and its panel of witnesses. mrs. josephine terry is the mother of the late border patrol agent, brian terry. ms. michelle terry is the sister of the late border patrol agent, brian terry. mr. robert hyer is the cousin of the late border patrol agent, brian terror. y. the committee would like to recognize other members of his family including kent who is unable to be here today. his stepmother, carolyn, his older brother kent terry jr. and his younger sister, our thoughts today are with agent terry and his entire family as they continue to mourn the untimely passing of their loved one.

the remaining witnesses on the second panel are mr. john dotson. he is a special agent in the phoenix field division of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. mr. olindo, lee, as he is known, is a special agent in the field division. and mr. peter portelli is the group supervisor of the phoenix field division. ladies and gentlemen, pursuant to the rules of our committee, all witnesses are to be sworn in order to testify. would you please rise to take the oath? raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm

that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. please be seated. in order to allow time particularly with such a large panel, your entire written statements and any conclusive material you want to have put in the record will be placed in the record. feel free to summarize and try to stay within five minutes. for the field agents, we will hold you closer to it. for the mother and sister, not so much. we'll start with mr. her, who was recognized for five minutes. >> good morning.

my name is robert hyer. i'm a cousin of slain border patrol agent, brian terry. i'm joined on the panel this morning with brian's mother, josephine and his older sister michelle. they have asked me to give his opening statement on behalf of the entire terry family. it was just 10 days before christmas last year when her family received the devastating news. brian had been shot and killed while engaged in a firefight with a group of individuals seeking to do harm to american citizens and others. we knew that brian faced imminent danger on a daily basis as a part of his chosen career. we also knew that he and his unit were highly trained and equipped with the best weapons this country could provide to

their fighting men and women. they were confident in overcoming any threat that may face in the desolate section of desert that they patrolled. he and his team prided themselves as being the tip of the spear that defended this country and its borders. the telephone call came in the middle of the night. i know this type of horrible notification has been received many times during the past 10 years by families of our military sons and daughters as the united states has fought wars in both iraq and afghanistan. after all, bryan had taken an oath to defend this country from all terrorist threats. what makes his death so shocking to his family is that he did not die in a foreign battlefield. he was killed in the line of duty as a u.s. border patrol

agent. he died not in iraq or afghanistan but in the desert outside of rio rico, ariz., some 18 miles inside the u.s.-mexican border. his killers were not taliban insurgents or al-qaeda fighters. there were a small group of mexican drug cartel and its heavily armed with ak-47 assault rifles. the rifles and ammunition that they carried in those weapons were designed to do one thing and that was to kill. brian was an amazing man. i said not just because he was family. many people thought he was almost superhuman. after his death, we visited his former duties stations in arizona.

each time we met one of his fellow agents, they spoke of how impressed they were with him. he was what we expect in our brothers and sons, a strong, competitive, handsome, courageous, funny, and incredibly patriotic american. some of his co-workers even had bestowed him with the nickname the"superman." he was very proud to serve as a federal agent. he had joined united states marine corps right after high school. he went on to college and earned a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice. he then became a local police officer in the communities in michigan. when a sought to have more impact on keeping this country said, he joined the border patrol.

brian, it seemed, had found his niche. before long, he tried out and became a member of the elite tactical border patrol unit. at age 18, he had much to look forward to including getting married and having a family. for now, he was living his dream. he wore his bortac in sydney with great pride and excelled as a team member. during training, he was given a classroom writing assignment. the assignment was to write something about himself would give the instructors some insight as to who he was. he composed a poem he entitled "if today is to be the day, so be it." i would like to read you that poem so you can have a better understanding of the man he was. "if you seek to do battle with

me this day, you will see -- receive the best and capable of giving. not be enough, but it will be evident i have to give. it will be impressive for i have constantly prepared myself for this day. i have trained, drilled, and rehearsed my actions so that i might have the best chance of defeating new. i have kept myself in peak physical condition, school myself and the martial skills, and have become proficient in the applications of combat tactics. you may defeat me but i am willing to die if necessary. i do not fear death because i have been close and up to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me. i do fear the loss of my honor and would rather die fighting to have it said that i was without courage. so, i will fight you. no matter how insurmountable it may seem, to the death if need be.

, in order that never be said of me that i was not a warrior." brian was due to complete his shifted to leave that night in the desert outside of ri orico at midnight. q. it takes a much deserved time off. he had already made his travel plans to fly back to michigan and spend the christmas holiday with his family. his attention to detail had insured that all the christmas gifts he had meticulously selected for his family had already been bought and sent in the mail prior to his arrival. he did ultimately come home the christmas. we buried him not far from the house that he was raised in just prior to christmas day.

the gifts that prime habitat with such love and care began to arrive in the mail same week. with each delivery, we felt the indescribable pain of brian's death. at the same time, we also remembered his amazing love and spirit. we hope that you now know a little more about our brian. we ask that to honor his memory by continuing to ensure what he worked so hard to do and ultimately gave his life doing. that is to keep this country safe and its borders secure.

we hope that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms is forthcoming with all information that the panel is seeking. we ask that if a government official made a wrong decision that they admit their error and take responsibility for his or her actions. we hope that all individuals involved in brian's murder and those who played a role in putting the assault weapons in their hands are found and prosecuted to the full extent of law. finally, to is our hope that no more law enforcement officers died at the hands of these heavily armed mexican drug cartel members operating on an inside the borders of the united states. the terry family would like to acknowledge and thank the

special agent in the fbi tucson field office and the prosecutors in the u.s. attorney's tucson office that have worked so hard and continued to work in bringing brian's killers to justice. we would also like to acknowledge the courage and integrity of the three special agents of the atf phoenix field division sitting with us on this panel. lee casa, pete forcelli, and john dotson. we recognize the professional risk you face coming forward and speaking about an investigation that was ill-conceived and reckless. the marine corps as the model of a december fell less which most of you know is latin for always fatal. -- semper fidelis.

the border patrol has honor first. brian lived honor, duty, and sacrifice which reflected both of these mottoes and the two organizations he was so proud to serve them. it is no up to all of us to put on a first and to remain always faithful in the quest for. for justice. on behalf of the entire terry family, thank you. >> thank you. special agent dotson, you are recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, >> please pull the mike closer. >> is that better? thisr hon. members of committee, i thank you. beginning with a military service and continuing through to this day, i am proud to spend

nearly my entire adult life in service to this country under sworn oath to to vent its constitution with my allegiance always pledged to this republic. spent the vast majority of law enforcement career conducting criminal investigations with a focus on those involving the trafficking of narcotics and firearms. i have been involved in countless investigations from misdemeanors to conspiracies. many times as an undercover agent, i have made thousands of investigative arrest and testified many times in federal and state courts across the country. i do not appear before you as some remote observer of these events. i, as i have been asked to do bearing only my firsthand account. i do not have the burdens of rendering judgment, the turning responsibility, or holding others responsible. i yield of those to this committee. through this process, hopefully some result may be brought to the families of brian terry and

others that we may honor their service. i hope your inquiry and those of senator grassley's office and the inspector general will give up a true account for the many others on both sides of our border who have been or will be affected by this operation. furthermore, i am grateful to have the opportunity to appear here today alongside the terry family to i met personally express to my sorrow and my regret. simply put, during this operation, we, the atf, failed to fulfil one of our most fundamental obligations, to care take the public trust and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. i became involved in this operation in 2009, the atf agents briefed me that the local phoenix fire arms dealers had provided them with a list of more than 40 individuals whom they believed to be purchasing guns for others, straw purchasers. several were members are

believed to have connections with mexican drug cartels. those identified were the initial suspects of this investigation. from the earliest days of that operation, i had no question that the individuals we were watching were acting as straw purchasers and the weapons they purchased would soon be trafficked through mexico and or other locations along the southwest border. ultimately, these firearms would be used in a violent crime. however, we did nothing to intervene. over the course of the next 10 months that i was involved, we monitored as the purchase handguns, ak-47 variants and 50 caliber rifles almost daily. rather than conduct an enforcement action, we took notes. we recorded observations. we tracked movements of these individuals. we read reports but nothing more. knowing all the while that days after these purchases, the guns that we saw these individuals by would begin turning up at crime scenes in the united

states and mexico. yet we still did nothing. i recall one suspect as he met with another receive a bag full of cash. that cache he proceeded to the local ffl who proceeded to buy firearms that we authorize. this straw purchaser left the federal firearms dealer and met with that third party and delivered the fire arms to him. still we did nothing. my instinct made me want to intervene and interdict those weapons, supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stock or arrest but rather to keep them under surveillance following the guns to walk. surveillance operations like this where the rules, not the exception. this is not a matter of some weapons that got away from us. we want to fall into a more significant target. allowing that weapons were new destined for criminals was the mandate.

remember a lecture by army lieutenant colonel davidgro ssman. atf are supposed to protect against the walls that prey upon us especially along our southern border. rather than meet the will head on, we sharpened his teeth, added to his claw and we sat idly by watching, tracking, and noting as he became more efficient and effective predator. prior to my coming to phoenix, i had never been involved in or heard of an operation which law enforcement officers would let guns swap. the very idea of doing so is unthinkable to most law- enforcement. some of the agents raised these concerns with our supervisors and in response we were told we did not understand the plan. i cannot begin to think of how risk of letting guns fall into the hands of young criminals could fence and a legitimate law enforcement interest. i hope the committee will receive a better explanation

than i. thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today before you and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, sir. . casa. >> good morning. my name is olindo james casa. i have been employed with atf since march of 1993 as an inspector and later as a special agent and currently assigned to the phoenix steel division, a phoenix group seven and a strike force group. as a special agent with atf, i have been a case agent, a co- case agent and participated in many firearms trafficking investigations both domestic and international in scope. i have extensive experience in regards to firearms trafficking investigations and my work has resulted in the successful prosecution of many individuals who violate the law.

after recording -- after reporting to the phoenix group 7 office, was briefed by group members on the investigation fast and furious. surely after, i became aware of what i believed to be unusual and questionable investigative techniques. it became aware that certain straw purchasers or purchasing numerous fire arms from firearms dealers. more times than not, alone know law enforcement activity was planned to stop this activity. the only law unfortunately that was a case in taken was to conduct surveillance of the transaction and nothing more. as the investigation progressed over the next couple of months, there were no obvious attempt to interdict the weapons. a round the same time, phoenix group 7 office received numerous fire arm traces. in mexico. many of those traces revealed

the straw purchases. special agents and a group including myself became increasingly concerned that alarmed the case agent and supervisor who refused to stop or inspect the straw purchasers from purchasing additional firearms special age dotson and i raised concerns constantly. to no avail. in response to our concerns, the group supervisor issued the e- mail to the group was a direct threat to specialists who were not in agreement on how cases m agentcallister for the supervisor maddest the investigation. based on my experience, did not think the e-mail was an empty threat. i took it very seriously it has been common practice for atf supervisor to retaliate against employees that do not to the

company line. in march, 2010, at the direction of the group supervisor, the surveillance started to be conducted by members of a to a group 7 and special agents from other offices. the atf special agents reported to the phoenix group 7 office around this period of time and became alarmed of the direction of their investigation and spoke out against the practice is being utilized. my role during the status of ellises' was that of ships supervisor. my responsibility was to oversee surveillance agents. in general, my fears were realized what out of these surveillance this. numerous occasions, the surveillance team followed straw purchasers and would have numerous fire arms in hand. they would have ak-47's, 50

caliber rifles and pistols all of which are devastating weapons. many of those occasions, the surveillance team would follow the straw purchaser to residences, public locations, but the end result was always the same. the surveillance was terminated by the case agent, co-case in or supervisor without interdicting are seizing the firearms. on several occasions, a person requested to interdict or seize the firearms and a manner that would further the investigation. i was always told to stand down and not seize the firearms. i had many law enforcement witnesses beckham verify my assertion. -- that can verify my assertion. i thought this was due to cop incompetency but in light of recent estimates released, -- recent documents released, it appears this was a recklessly .lannned

special agent dotson and i warned the supervisor of the reckless path they were taking. we warn them of their actions but were completed -- were repeatedly ignored. they did not seem concerned by the question posed to them. i would like to express my heartfelt condolences to border patrol agent brian terry's family. i am sorry for your loss. >> thank you.

special agents portelli. >> good morning. i thank you for the opportunity to appear a for the committee today. i am here to provide testimony that i hope will assist in your inquiry and investigation that has come to be known as operation fast and furious. i believe your inquiry is essential. there have been great mistakes made in this case and the committee, the american people, and a family of border patrol agent ran terry deserve answers. allow me to give you background information about myself. in 1987, began my career with the new york city police department in the bronx. as a uniformed police officer and ultimately as a detective and homicide task force. my career, i estimate a responded to approximately 600 homicide scenes. the vast majority were drug- related committed by armed criminals and these violent criminals were armed with illegal firearms and have little regard for human life.

i retired early from nypd in june of 2001 and took a position with atf. i did this because i have the honor of working with atf agents who were working and making great cases working hand-in- hand with incredible prosecutors from the southern and eastern district of new york and working with these officers, one thing was clear -- dedicated prosecutors work and and and dedicated atf agents to make a case is that true impact of the safety of the public. there was an absolute sense of teamwork and respect. i emphasize the words teamwork and respect. together with prosecutors from the u.s. attorney's office, we would use confidential informant, proffer is, confidential agreements, investigative grand juries and and subpoenas and an abundance of other investigative tools to make successful cases as part of a team. i left the new york field division in march of 2007 to begin working in my current post as a supervisor of the phoenix one field office. within weeks, a surprise at what

i observe for it in my opinion, dozens of firearms traffickers were given a pass by the united states attorney's office in the district of arizona. despite the existence of probable cause in many places, there were no indictments, no prosecutions, and criminals were allowed to walk free. the office policies helped pave a dangerous path. the same could not be said of the arizona attorney general's office. the state prosecutors, we turned evidence. ked or vierlla traffic firearms and there were successfully prosecuted. this was after the case was turned down. he was released from prison last july because of a lesser sentencing guidelines that apply in state court. the alternative, no prosecution,

in my eyes was unacceptable. another case which involved a corrupt federal firearms licensee was supplying several firearms trafficking organizations was declining by mr.hurley. this particular dealer admitted that approximate 1000 of its firearms for traffic to mexico. over one half dozen of that dealers firearms relocated from the body of beltran labor cartel after he was killed in a gunbattle in mexico. due to the recalcitrance of the united states attorney's office, cases such as these were presented for prosecution to the arizona attorney general's office where the state laws carry significantly lesser penalties than they did on of the federal statutes. i believe the situation in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of arizona in phoenix declined most of our firearms cases was at least one factor which led to the bottle now known as operation fast and

furious. atf agents assigned to the phoenix field division with the concurrence of their chain of command walked and guns for the atf agents allowed guns to be provided to individuals with a new traffic than two members of the mexican drug organizations predict it's a by failing to laughlin interdict weapons and they did so by allowing licensees to continue selling weapons in instances where they know that new introduction with the plan. -- interdiction would be planned. my concerns were dismissed. there referred to the case and groundbreaking and they referred that we were the only people doing this. this operation which endangered the american public was orchestrated in conjunction with assistant u.s. a attorney embry hurley.

i read documents that indicate that his boss, u.s. attorneydennis burke. agreed to this. this is a deadly strategy. the thought that the techniques used in the fast and furious investigation would result in taking them a cartel given the toothless nature of the straw purchasing law and the lack of a strong statute is delusional. based upon my conversation with agents assisting in this case, surveillance is terminated which means that while the case agent believed these weapons were destined for mexico, the possibility exists they were traffic with cartel drug to other points within the united states of america. as a career law enforcement officer, i continue to be horrified. i think these farms will continue to turn up at homicides for years to come. in closing, when members of the committee and all americans to

know that this is not out atf agents conduct business. i am proud of some of the incredible work of atf agents around the country every day. they have given their lives and performance of duty. on my last trip to new york, i was present for a homicide trial. in that same court house in the southern district of new york, there are three other separate homicide trials going on, all from three separate atf- initiated investigations. that is the type of work that atf agents to every day. i thank you for your time and again my condolences to the terry family. >> i think all of our witnesses. i will recognize myself for the first round of questioning. mrs. terry, i understand the u.s. attorney in arizona visited you in december. can you tell us in your own words what he had to say? >> which attorney are you talking about? >> this is the u.s. attorney from arizona the came to visit

you in december. >> yes, that was mr. burke. >> what did he have to say to you? >> he was trying to explain to us exactly what happened in a roundabout way. we never got anything out of the visit that he did have. >> if he did not tell you at this time that firearms that killed your son came from this operation, when did you learn about fast and furious and the connection to your son's death? >> most of it i heard from the media. we have not really got anything direct, phone calls or nothing from anybody. >> hopefully today we will bring a better answers on that. mr. heyer, i understand you recently received a call from the attorney's office and arizona. what was the content of that call? >> the u.s. attorney, dennis

burke, has tried to keep us advised on the prosecution of the individuals believed to have a hand in brands death. -- in brian's death. i received a telephone call whenever an indictment was going to be made and also some information about where the investigation was going with respect to brian's killers. >> did he ever comment about your testimony here today? >> he did not. >> mr. dotson, just yesterday, the justice department said the following -- i will make a supposition for the record -- it

is untimely and aunts in for this thing to come out but i will ask you to answer in regard to something just as put out in " the new york times." and on nine the source said to them -- an unnamed source said gun ownership of such an ingrained part of the culture in arizona that was difficult to tell straw purchasers from legal ones without blank, blank, blank. was it so difficult that you did not know who the straw purchases were? >> no, sir, not at all. i would question that all known law enforcement source as to his background of these matters. >> we called washington's ban [laughter] . >>spin. >> when i got to phoenix, the 40 odd suspects were identified off the bat p.

cases were made against those individuals that dead. to identify a straw purchaser, from a normal american citizen who happens to reside in the state or gun culture is so prominent, perhaps if a one on one scenario existed or one time, but you have an individual purchase hundreds of fire arms over the course of an investigation while we are watching him, there is no mistake that he was a stroke per. to serve agent casa, you would agree that if you have someone drop of weapons and a drop point, it is obvious they would be a straw purchasers >> ? yes, sir, that is correct. >> mr. heyer, you're as

qualified as any in this room. you're also a family member. to date, the straw purchasers that were part of the chain of weapons that led to the murder of a, a cousin they have not been charged with the crime. they have been charged with buy and lie, signing an affidavit that there were the purchaser of that gun. is it reasonable for them to include their connection to the murder of ryan terry? -- brian terry? >> i am here as strictly family today and not as a secret service agent. >> peter portelli, you of all mentioned about the prosecution's use the including in new york. you buy a gun, you knowingly sell it to a third party, you lie about it, it leads to murder. isn't that how you get connected to the trial in addition to the

trigger polar? >> yes, sir. >> is pretty unusual to have the murder, a high-profile murder of a border patrol agent and you don't roll up everyone involved in up to the prosecution? >> in all fairness, i don't know what steps the fbi has taken in their investigation. that in information has not been relate to me at any point. >> mrs. terry, we will do everything we can to get full information and full prosecution. we want whatever would be the greatest relief we can give you to let you know that this won't happen again. >> thank you. we now recognize the ranking member for his questions. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. and to the terry family, we thank you for your sacrifice. to mrs. terry, you raised an angel. when the description was made --

one listens to that poem -- when i listened to that poem -- that set it all. i want to say to the family, i understand your pain. i promise you we will not rest, and to the agents, we will not rest until every single person responsible for all of this, no matter where they are, are brought to justice. you said it best in your statement, last thing you said, you said it is now up to all of us to put on her first and remained always faithful in the quest for justice. i think you're absolutely right and i promise you we will not fail you. to the atf officers, i thank you. this has got to be very difficult.

i make a commitment to you. this is what senator grassley said, and i want the word to go out, that we want absolutely no retaliation against you. you have -- you are simply standing up for what you believe and. you are simply carrying out your oath of office. you have simply been great americans and continue to be and we thank you so very much. we thank you for your bravery we thank you for what you are doing. one of the most troubling allegations we have heard during this investigation is that the atf agents group 7 or ordered to terminate surveillance and monitoring of suspected straw purchasers without ceasing the firearms. in your written testimony, you made the statement on numerous occasions, the surveillance teams follow the straw purchasers and observed by and then depart.

and many of these occasions, the surveillance team would follow the straw purchasers to a residence or republic location or until the surveillance team was spotted by the straw purchasers. the end result was always the same -- the surveillance was terminated. my question is pretty basic. do you know why the surveillance was terminated? do you think it was a resource problem or was it a strategy >> no, sir, we had plenty of resources. i found about the briefing papers. at the time this was going on, we had no idea why things were occurring. we were told to fall in line to what we were told. >> you say you raise those concerns with your group supervisor? >> yes, sir. >> special a do genttson, regent special agent dotson, yorktown was quite similar. you said would follow them back to their house or to a business

or make another vehicle and a parking lot and we would have to come back to go to a anotherffl because another suspect was buying 15 or 20 of his own. i am trying to understand this. if you are following a suspected drug purchaser and to start at the gun store and you follow it to a house, why would you keep falling that gun? >> that is the one question that i cannot answer for you. it made no sense to us either. it was just what we were ordered to do in every time we question did, there was punitive action against those of us who did ask. as to why we would let them go, i can't w tell youhy. all for this committee can find that out. >> we will find out. i understand there might be news

suspected straw purchases happening back of a gun store but if you keep clean the guns or following to attract new ones, that does not seem to work. i guess that is what you are saying. did you raise concerns with your supervisor >> ? yes, sir, many times. have either of you ever received an explanation as to why this operation would voluntarily terminate surveillance of suspected weapons traffickers text anybody? >> sir, no, when pressed for an answer to that question, it was relayed to me that they did not have to explain anything to me. i was to do as i was told. i when i questioned that further, my boss would havean asac come down and he would explain to us in his way about how he was not obligated to

explain it any further to us and we needed to follow orders. >> i think we're missing a piece of the puzzle. it sounds like both of you have raised concerns with your supervisor. i don't want to reach any conclusions because i think we need to gather more information. it makes sense to talk to the supervisor and figure out what his answer to these allegations might be. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. i'm assuming you will join me in ensuring that all the people about these gentlemen will be interviewed in a prompt fashion. >> mr. chairman, there is no doubt about it. at the same time, i am glad you asked that question because we want to make sure that everyone is brought to justice. let me be abundantly clear -- i want to make sure there is no person, i don't care who they are, whose trial is jeopardized

or that is able to get away to get off charges -- i don't care how connected they are, i don't want their trials jeopardized. about that.cerned i think we can reach a balance. i urge the justice department to cooperate. they have expressed their concerns. as i said before and i promised this family, i promise you i will do everything in my power. i will not rest until we bring everybody to just. >> i thank the gentleman. we recognize the gentleman from oklahoma,, mr. langford. >> this has to be a very difficult day. we very much appreciate your time for being here. special agent dotson, give me your best guess and it will be

just a guess on this -- how many weapons do we have in the united states to war with mexico that are out there that are result of fast and furious that we do not know where they are? >> my best guess and remembering that fast and furious was one case from one group in one field division is about 2500 total -- in total that we facilitated the sale of to these straw purchasers. i have heard numbers as many as 300-800 we know have been recovered. outstanding, it was in the ballpark of anywhere from 1000- 1800 guns. >> what is your best guess as to how many are in united states? >> i would say2:1, mexico versus the u.s.. >> was there any discussion to trace these weapons that were sold to straw purchasers other

than serial numbers? >> yes, sir. >> how successful do you think that was? >> after a trip to radio shack with atf funds, i myself manufactured a gps tracking device that would set inside a rifle. the problem with it was the limited battery life. there was also attempts made through our tech dept. to have gps systems -- a gps system wired into 18 k variant rifled. >> how was that received by supervisors? >> the one that went through our tax system was initiated by them after my attempts to manufacture one that didn't work out so well the one we got from our tech side did actually work. it achieved its purpose of the last time anybody knew its whereabouts was about 50 miles

south of the u.s./mexico border. >> do you know of any other officers of the atf that are using this type of strategy? >> not that i'm aware of, no, sir. >> would you consider this a common practice being contemplated in any other area? >> no, sir, i definitely hope not. >> let me follow up on a very serious statement. you made the statement in your opening statement that was a common practice for supervisors to retaliate a special agents that don't toe the company line. >> yes, sir. >> that is a pretty serious statement. >> that is commonplace in the atf. >> is that unique to your area or multiple areas? >> mike spriggs is that it is common in multiple areas -- my experience is that it is common in multiple areas. other agents have received

punishment whether there were justified or not. >> do we have a perfect storm here of a u.s. attorney was unwilling to prosecute federal gun laws and a group of supervisors in atf that are promoting a program to release weapons here or is it yoursenseg coordinated going on? i understand that that is a guess at this point. >> what we have here is a is a colossal failure of a leadership within the united states attorney's office and the doj as to the individuals strategy. more families will suffer at the hands of armed criminals. we are not giving guns to people hunting bears. we are giving guns to people who are hunting other humans. the assumption that these guns went to mexico is something that

they believed in that group. is something they believed in that >> that this plan would happen and it would be allowed to happen. >> that we would be allowed to identify a cartel and we could bring them down. s i know based on what i've heard from agents and what i heard over the radio, surveillance was terminated often far from the bore terrify. some of these guns could be diverted with cartel funds to new york, baltimore, anywhere in the united states. that was a disaster. >> tnk you. with that i yield back my time. >> we now recognize the gentlelady from new york, administers mccarthy. maloney. i'm sorry. you're both new york but i know the difference. >> thank you for calling this important hearing and i join my colleagues in expressing our condolences and support the terry family. and i thank all of the

professionals in law enforcement for your work and your bravery. and i especially want to welcome special agent furcelli since i used to have the honor of representing the beautiful bronx of where you served, and i appreciate your statements in support of the atf inew york and their fine work. i would like to ask yo special agent furcelli, some of the specific statements in your testimony to try to get a better understanding of what evidence is necessary in order to get a conviction in these cases. and if i understand this correctly, there is no federal statute that specifically prohibits straw purchases, is that correct? >> no, ma'am. there is a statute but the statute doesn't carry significant jail time and candidly -- i had great success in wking with several mr. stwrags the u.s. attorney's office in new york and we used

basic techniques. you arrest the people who are the bottom feeders,ower people in an organization and you proffer them. gather information. utilize waivers of speedy presentment where you have somebody go do a delivery in the street to catch the next guy in the chain. have the straw guy deliver the firearms to the trafficker and arrest the trafficker. we didn't have those tools available to us in arizona because the united states attorney's office wouldn't allow us to utilize waivers of speedy presentment before a magistrate. proffers almost never happened. the basic investigative techniques that iused in the southern district of new york, eastern district of new york and elsewhere weren't being deployed in the district eve arizona. >> working with my staff when we looked into it, straw purchases are typically charged under section 922 and 924 of the criminal code and these sections make it a crime to knowingly make a false statement.

and in this case the false statement would be when a straw purchaser lies on a form 4473, when he or she makes a straw purchase. this was the way that they went after straw purchases in other states. are you ware of these two sections, and knowingly making a false statement? are you ware ofhat particular -- >> i am, ma'am. again, i'll just seat in many significances these cases weren't prosecuted by the u.s. attorney's office. . it get back to the false statement. and what is the false name they would make on such a form that they could use in prosecutions? are you aware? >> well, the most blatant one is there's a box that you check whether or not our buying the gun for yourself. a straw purchaser clearly is not. >> getting back to your statement on the prosecutions of border state u.s. attorneys have complained that district court judges view these prosecutions

as mere paper violations and have you heard this criticism before? >> i have and i agree with it. i think perhaps a mandatory minimum one year sentence might deter an individual from buying a gun. some people view this no more than doing 65 in a 55. >> if the gentlelady will suspended. i want to caution the witnesses that the scope of this, your testimony here is limited, and that it's not about proposed legislation and the like and under house rules would not fall within the scope of this. so, anecdotally you canave opinions but it's not considered valid testimony. >> point of order. >> yes. >> let me just -- the officer for sully in his, in his testimony has a statement, mr. chairman, that i read where he says that these firearms are

ending up on both sides of the border. and i think it's only fair th since it's his statement that want she, and that's basically what shs pretty much going to -- >> the gentlelady can ask any question she wants within the scope of the hearing. under rule 11 clause 2k8 it's the discretion of the committee as to the breadth of the testimony. any question related to the operation or the failures of fast and furious or fact the all indications of what occurred in arizona or throughout the system are within the scope of the heing, proposed legislation at a federal level and whether or not they should be changed are outsidthe scope of not only this hearing but would not ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of this committee. >> further point of order, mr. chairman. it's my understanding of the rules is that you can object to the question but you can't tell the witness what to testify to.

>> you're cutting into my time. i appreciate the chairman's statement. and i appreciate your statement earlier you wanted full answer and full prosecution. i think it's certainly within the scope of this hearing to understand why we're not getting a full prosecution. d the allegation that they call tm paper excuses as opposed to a valid concrete way to react i think is a valid way to go forward. i'm supporting your statements. >> the gentlelady's questions and whether or not the gentleman believes that law enforcement was doing its job or that the courts were properly enforcing and whether that may have led to actions is fully within the scope. anything that these individuals witnessed in or around fast and furious is certainly within the scope. i only caution we're not here to talk about proposed gun legislation, it would be outside the skoech this hearing. >> wasn't discussing that. i was trying to figurout why the justice department and the

a.g. found prosecutors often declined these gun cases. i want to know why they are declining them. to quote from the testimony, one of you said because they believe it is difficult to obtain convictions on these violations and because they believe it is difficult to obtain paper work from mexico. and my question is are these valid excuses not to bring these cases. i think that's a valid question as to why we're notetting prosecutions in these cases? are they valid excuses to say they are paper excuses n to bring it? >> i believe not, ma'am. go after the mid-level and upper level members of the cartel you need to start unless you have evidence on them immediately with the people at the bottom of the food chain. when straw buyer cases are dismissed because of excuses made up by the united states attorney's office, then you can't prosecute that body feeder to move up to the next level. >> one of you in your

testimonies called these laws toothless, and you could explain to me why our existing straw purchase laws toothless? >> my inion, ma'am, is that with these types of cases, for somebody to testify against members o a cartel where the alternative is seeing a probation officer once a month, they will opt towards not cooperating with the law enforcement authorities. >> and what would help your interactions with u.s. attorneys office? mr. casa, mr. furcelli or others, wh would help you to be able to be part of getting convictions in bringing those to justice that are part of these straw purchases that led to the death of mrs. terry's son. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. can you answer that. >> first and foremost they need more resources the u.s. attorney's office in arizona. there are overwhelming numbers

of gun crimes occurring there. if they don't have the resources to prosecute them then i imagine they would need some assistance in those regards. >> we now recognize the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador for five minutes. >> thank you. terry family, thank you for being here. i will always remember the poem and i think i'm going to put this o my wall. do i not fear death but do i fear loss of my honor. i think that's something hopefully every member of congress can somehow remember. i think sometimes we worry too much in death and in our case death is the next election and too many of us forget that what we should be worried about is our northern and the honor of this nation. so thank you, mrs. terry, for raising a great son. i have five children and i can even imagine what you're going through. when did you mrs. terry, when

did yofirst hear that -- i think you said you first heard about the weapons being purchased through the operation fast and furious. you heard that throughhe media or did you hear that from any of the agencies? >> no. excuse me. mostly on tv, the media, newspapers. i never really got a call about anything like that until it was brought out in the newspaper. >> okay. how did you feel when you hed about that? >> i was -- i just was flabbergasted. i didn't believe it at first. >> did you have any questions, did any questions come to your mind when you started learning that maybe there was something? because i think -- i heard about this when i was first elected. i'm a freshman here. i was just first elected. right after my election i started to hear from people in my district about this ande were, in fact, some of the first

to call for a hearing here in congress about this. and in the house. and what went through your mind? what were some of the thoughts that you had? >> well, i did ask a lot about how it happened, when it happened, why it happened. but never got no answers because nobody wanted to say anything. >> so did you address these questions with the department of justice or any members of -- >> yes. >> no one has answered those questions. >> we got a lot of different answers. >> to whom did you speak specifically, do you remember? >> well we've been to so many memorials and talked to so many people but i've talked to a lot of his bortac friends that were on the unit that was with him. and they were like under gag orders so ey couldn't tell us anything. it was like they didn't even want to talk to us. >> are you satisfied with the

answers you're getting? >> no. >> no. any of the members of the family your satisfied with any of the answers you're getting? mr. hyer? >> i think i can speak for the family, congressman, that there is a level of frustration for the family. i want to make it clear that our number one goal is to pursue the prosecution of all the killers of brian. that's our number one goal. and, you know, the u.s. attorney's office in tucson and the fbi is working very hard to do that. but i also think that i can speak for the family. we've talked about this this morning. that there seems to be a separation, a distinct separation between brian's murder investigation and the atf

operation gun runner fast and furious operation. there seems to be a hesitancy to connect the two. so that part is very frustrating. >> can you tell me, special agent casa, or any of the special agent, that's a great point. why do you think there's this separation. why are they making the separation between murder of the agent and the operation gun runner? >> simply put is to reduce their liability and our atf's role in this murder. started with thestraw purchase that wasn't interdicted and end up in the murder of a law enforcement officer. by the sounds of it a very honorable law enforcement officer. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> will the gentleman yield? >> absolutely. >> following up on that, the two

serial numbers that were used and found at the scene, to your knowledge, aren't those serial numbers not the first, second or third purchases, meaning there already was a case made against a potential defendant and it could have been arrested and even turned as an informant, potentially, priority to the sale of those two weapons? >> my understanding is yes. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, mrs. terry and mr. hyer my prayers and condolences goes to your son, your cousin and family. special agent furcelli, in your statement you expressed extreme from us twrags the u.s. tone's office in phoenix. you said that they gaveozens of firearms, traffickers a pass. you also testified that they allowed criminals to walk free, and you indicated that they declined most of the cases, most of your cases and this was at

least one factor wch led to the debacle and perhaps the necessity of operation of fast d furious, is that correct? >> yes, sir. i strongly believe that. >> those are strong allegations. i want to ask about specific cases you cite. first you talk about the 2007 case of victor ravela who trafficked 50 caliber rifles to the mexican cartels one of which was used to kill a mexican military commander. the u.s. marshall david gonzalez said at the time this case was made one of our highest priorities because of the nature of the crime but you say the assistant u.s. attorney in phoenix wouldn't prosecute. do you believe in that want case that we had sufficient evidence to move forward with the prosecution? >> absolutely. in fact, sir, that case was prosecuted by e arizona attorney general's office where they had to utilize statutes that aren't normally utilized in gun cases.

they had to charge them fraud schemes. mr. harley the assistant u.s. attorney who declined the case stated because the gun was in mexico, the body of the crime was in mexico, we have no case and outright declined prosecution for that reason. we had identified additional straw buyers in mr. ravela's network. we got cooperating statements from them. they also went to jail. this could have been a very good federal case. again the u.s. attorney's office decline it because in their opinion the gun being in mexico meant that the evidence of the crime was in mexico. >> do you kn any other office or region that applies that type of standard to go forward with prosecutions? >> sir, i was told this was a ninth circuit issue but i've had discussions with prosecutors in s angeles which is also ninth circuit that say they didn't carry it to that extreme. what i will say for the record, shs sincthen, since mr. harley is no longer trunk firearms unit, he now awers to

another supervisor they now amended that to say that if we can go down and physically examine the weapon, that they will now charge those cres. but for two years where i was in charge of the firearms trafficking unit if the gun went to mexico that case was dead. >> okay. you also testified regarding the gun store case in 2008. you said the dealer admitted 1,000 firearms were trafficked to mexico and half a dozen or so were found around the dead body of the cartel leader. is that correct? >> yes, sir. for the record i would like to point out that case was brought to trial b the arizona attorney general's office. the case was dismissed by the judge. so that case was dismissed. what i will say so in regards to that case is i did, after that case was declined by the united states state attorney's office present that case to the southern district of new york

for prosecution becausthey were doing a lot of international narcotics traffickin cases and that offi said if we could show them one wire transfer through their district they would have been interested in taking that case. in the state where all these crimes were taking place they were willing to dismiss prosecution efforts. >> both "the washington post" and pbs front line support your version, i guess, concluded that if there were ever a good case against a set of rogue gun traffickers was that and i'll read excertain from "the washington post". it says this was a case that seemingly had everything in its favor. the agents had tons of evidence. surveillance. recorded phone calls. confidential informants and undercover agents. this case was denied as you say by the assistant u.s. attorney in phoenix. is that correct? >> yes. same u.s. assistant attorney who was the prosecutor in the fast and furious investigation.

>> in 2009, 2010, i'm running out of time you also say the same u.s. attorney declined dozens of other cases, is that correct? >> after 2009 my duties wering changed to home invasion investigation. i'm not certain what happened. >> what's your assement of why this specific u.s. attorney repeatedly refused to take gun cases? do you have any -- >> sir, i don't know. i couldn't give you a reason as to why. >> maybe we should have him in for questioning. >> that would be great. >> all right. mr. chairman, i've run out of time. >> would the gentleman like an additional 30 seconds. >> please. >> without objection. >> just want to note that your testimony which is very good and, look, it takes a lot of courage to do what you gentlemen are doing. it goes back to 2007. >> it does. >> so, you know, this isn't a political issue because obviously, you know, we're talking about career prosecutors that have bee there since the bush administration and you cite going back to 2007, you're not

alone in your assessment, we've heard other complaints from other witnesses. so, i just want to thank you for your willingness to come forward and help the committee with its work. i want to thank the chairman for the extra 30 seconds. thank you. >> thank you sir. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from utah. >> first to the terry fami thank you for your son's service, your relative's service. he's a hero. we got a lot of people on the front line doing tough things. and there will be nights ahead. i just want to know and express given an opportunity to know how much appreciate his service and will remember him. and to the agents brave enough to step forward andell it like it is, we thank you. it takes a lot of bravery to step forward, do the right thing. i know you probably had sleepless nights and will have others moving forward, but you're doing the right thing and we want to thank you for your service and for your bravery in sharing your personal

perspectives in this situation. mr. dodson, let's start with you for a second. at what point did you come to the -- you had to come forward, had to say something. usually these things build up or something big happens. explain to me what happened where you thought enough was enough? >> you mean outside of atf, sir? >> in this particular case. why did you get to this point where you're sharing this information? >> well, i questioned my supervisors almost immediately, once we realized, once we relocated the phoenix and got briefed and started operionally that we were allowing this to go. then as a case agent, my supervisor and chain o command told me i was wrong and they were right and this was a righteous operation. it wasn't until on december 15th, 2010 when i read, we have

a significant incident report, detailing the preliminary investigation in the trace and weapons purchased, and after reading that and speaking with my fbi counterparts and learning that they were unaware of the events regarding the purchase and trace of the firearms, i had to go outside the atf, i attempted to contact the council office, ethics section. made several attempts to contact oig office and ultimately i was able to speak to soone at snar graph ner's office. >> do you think there's a conflict with oig given the fact it started as a result of recommendation or do you see any conflict that the investigator general has? >> i can see a conflict between the office of the oig, the actual individuals working the case, my interaction with them since interviewed by them is i think they get it.

however, those two offices being what they are and how they are aligned, there's inherently a conflict of interest there, if in fact someone at doj knows about it, is as well versed as anyone as atf, that thereby creates a conflict with oig. >> give me an idea of the size and scope. talking about thousands of guns going south, so to speak. in your normal course of business, if you thought there was a straw purchase happening, how many guns would push you over the threshold to say we better stop that? >> sir i can tell you prior to my arriving in phoenix, december 2009, my entire career we have never lost a firearm. as a matter of fact, even if one had gotten away from us, if it was only a prop which w mechanically engineered to not effectively fire a round, even if that got away from us, no one went home until we got it back. >> even just one gun? >> yes, sir.

and in this case we have thousands of guns. >> what was the goal here? i mean -- >> sir, i can tell you what i was told. i was told that the goal i to ultimately target and bring in entire cartel to prosecution. >> howere they going to do that. the suspected cartels were in mexico, were they not? >> yes, sir, they were. i have no idea how they planned to do that by this operation or how it was designed to functio >> so was it the goal to knowingly and intentionally allow these guns to go into mexico? >> was that the ultimate goal? not as explained to me. was that part of the rules in play to achieve what the goals they had explained, yes. we were mandated let these guns go. make no mistake. there was not a time we were out there on surveillance where we di't have the forethought that these were going to be recovered in crimes. the next time we became aware of these guns would be when they were recovered at their final crime, not whatever crime they

might have done, it was the last crime they commit that -- not they commit but the person that has them commit that they are recovered in. there may be nine or ten the cartels perpetrated with those firearms prior to that date, but that recovery date is when we'll learn about it. so ultimately what was the main goal as explained to me was to get a cartel. the mission, what we were doing, what we were ordered to do every day was watch these same guys buy the same guns from the same dealers who we told to make the sales, and then we would sit back and wait for traces. and when they came through from places in mexico where it was definitively related to cartels, they were giddy. they thought it justified, it created their nexus from this straw purchaser to the cartel. however, there is not a rookie police officer in the country that can explain to you how we're going to make a case on

them with that information. >> my time expired. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first join my colleagues in expressing profound sympathy to the terry famyor your loss and the country's loss. it may sound hollow to say thank you for his service. we are in a terrible battle in the southwest of the country and border with mexico and northern mexico. sadly, he is another victim of that terrible battle. but his memory and his contribution are something that will long be remembered and appreciated and our thoughts and prayers go out to you and the family. i want to tnk the three agents for being here and for your courage and for your testimony. i want to respectfully suggest,

howeve that i think we urged you to speak freely at some risk, and that means answering questions freely, without interference from any oer member of this committee. and we don't censor content here. the hearing has a scope, but if you feel an answer to a question requires clarification, you don't need to be mindful of the scope and every member of the committee has a right to ask questions, solicit answers. i want you to have that confidence before we begin urging you to speak frly, so you can speak freely answering questions, including questions by this member. let me ask you, i read your testimony about the u.s. attorney in phoenix, and i want to explore with you a little bit to what do you attribute the seeming reluctance to prosecute aggressively obvious illegal

behavior that has a direct impact on your mission and that of the u.s. attorney's office? >> sir, i can't say for sure. again, i don't want to paint the united states attorney office with a broad brush. we had a successful program that took place two summers ago where we arrested 70 home invaders, violent criminals doing drug robberies and prosecuted them and went to trial. for some reason, the firearms unit which when i first arrived was run by rachel hernandez, then run by emory hurley consistently had issues with prosecuting our cases. one example, we had an informant that they dismissed outright. this informant provided truthful testimony, accurate information. everything that met all the standards we look for in law enforcement, they dismissed every case this informant had anything to do with. wh i questioned him as to why are we no longerer using this informant, they said his information was inaccurate and lied. i was upset.

i had such -- i went back and looked at the information and that informant's information was dead on. we asked why are we not using this informant, she said he was with emergency witness assistance program funds, and policy says we can't do that. having worked with southern district of new york and contacting main justice, found out that wasn't true. thonly disclosure would bet trial you may have to articulate that informant was paid those funds. when i approached her again about this particular situation becaus dozens of cases hung in the balance, she finally conceded well, he wore a lot of jewelry, he doesn't have jewelry appeal. -- doesn't have jury appeal. we won't use him. i put all kinds of people on the stand as part cooperation agreements. part of a lawyer's job is to prep a witness. if he wore too much gold chain or didn't have jury appeal, it is incumbent on the prosecutor to prepare him for testimony.

it was either lazy or arrogance that tainted many cases. >> when you compared that experience to your experience in new york, this was unusual? >> sir, i can say that i worked at the sus attorney's office mostly for the southern district through mary joe white's tenure, dave kelly, james comb ee, even currently, consistently outstandin i can tell you that in the united states attorney's office from arizona when i got there, daniel cannous was acting. and it was bad to win gun cases. it has improved slightly since this flare up, but it has been nsistently bad. >> one final question, i wish i had more time, but we talked about resources. there are 8500 licensed gun dealers in the four southwestern states. >> yes. >> you have224 atf agents. do you really have the resources you need to do your yob? >> it is amazing, i just had contact with a friend of mine in the 46th princt where i worked

as a new york city police officer. one square mile. there are 355 officers for that one square mile. i have lesthan 100 agents assigned to the entire state of arizona, 114,006 square miles. do we have the resources? no. does that stop -- >> no, different issue. thank you, special agent. >> sure. >> thank you, go to the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership on this issue and to the family of agent terry, let me say on behalf of the people from south carolina, we offer our condolences and thank you for the service and ultimately the sacrifice, your son, your brother, your friend. to atf. i worked with atf for 16 years and i find this hearing to be bitterly disappointing. this is not reflective of the atf agents that i worked with

for 16 years, and this panel is perhaps not the best panel for me to express my displeasure, but nonetheless, let me ask you this. when did atf have either constructive or actual knowledge guns were going to mexico? >> sir, it is my understanding in 2009 wh operation fast and furious was initiated, they were not interdicting firearms and had knowledge those guns were being trafficked in mexico. >> when you say that, you mean something as simple as a traffic stop several miles away from where the purchase was made. so you don't blow the informant, that easily could have done, right? >> absolutely. let me point out something, sir. a lot of when we say informant, a lot of information that came to atf came from gun dealers who didn't like the fact they are portrayed as a nefarious market. gun dealers were our friends.

they helped us make a lot of these cases and we had successful cases. this is an anomaly, the fast and furious investigation. but the problem is getting them mixed up in this, encouraging them to sell guns when they decided to stop did not help our reputation with the gun industry. the other thing is if our job is to stem the flow of firearms into mexico and certain gun dealers realize there's a straw purchasing problem and willi to make an analogy, turn off the fawcetts, we could have diverted elsewhere where we thought the raw purchases were going to. we just encouraged them to sell gu. it made no sense. >> even for this investigation as half baked as it was to ever have worked, you would have had to havextradited folks from mexico back for prosecution in a lying and buying case with statutory maximum of what, ten years? and the guidelines, what are the guidelines in the typical lying

and buying case? >> generally speaking, people without criminal history, why they can fill out the form, they get probation. ain, that's if they are prosecuted at all. >> they could have done car stops, could have done search warrants. already had a title iii up from what i understand. correct? >> yes. >> even if it had worked, i don't understand how it ever would have worked. >> well, sir, let's say for example that we wouldn't get as far as to be able to extra diet heads of the cartel. perhaps by doing interdictions, we could deter some guns being purchased. secondly, had we been able to stop a straw buyer, perhaps do a controlled delivery, we would have made it to the next level in the organization. >> you could have flipped. you don't have to let the guns walk, flip them. >> absolutely. >> how does your u.s. attorney not do profrs? >> that shocks me, sir. they do them very sparingly. 70 home invasion defendants we arrested as i pointed out

earlier. we proffered one. we could have solved untold number of crimes had we had access to those defendants. >> this what federal agencies were involved and what complaints did they lodge? >> i can tell you the genesis of the case, had an agent with immigration and customs enforcement in group seven on a cocaine sfat us. ice was involved. >> was the bureau invold? >> i'm sorry? >> bureau, fbi? >> atf group seven is the phoenix strike force group. the doj strike force consists of entities from dea, fbi, atf, and ice. >> what i am trying to get a sense of, i have less than a minute, i want to know how many diffent law enforcement officers and agenciestold the

united states attorney's office this is a dreadful idea. how many different people and agencies said this is unprecedented, it is a dreadful law enforcement idea and needs to stop? how many people told miss mccallister and miss english this is a horrible idea? >> as for agencies that expressed that to the u.s. attorney's office, none that i am aware of. asor individuals that expressed to miss mccallister and myself, agency casas, agent halt. >> almost every person came through that group saw what was going on. >> every agent outside phoenix field division as well as many in it. specifically those that came in from the outside were appalled as soon as they learned. >> i am out of time. but i would like to ask one more question. when this supervisor realized guns were making it into mexico, acknowledging the fact that we

do not have much success extraditing people from mexico for lying and buying cases, were mexican authorities warned hey, something bad has happened and firearms are in your country because we turned an eye to it? >> sir, i can say having had conversations with our staff in mexico city, th is atf personnel assigned to mexico city, they were not fully briefed on this, were very upset about it. this is something that was contained within the atf group seven. >> we are going to ask for extradition cooperation from a country that doesn't even know what we're doing, doesn't know we're letting guns go into their country that myrrher their citizens and our agents. nose. the way this case is designed, we don't have a lying and buying charge on the individual that committed the ime in mexico with these firearms. they are not the ones that lied on the form. >> you would have to have a conspiracy case. i'm sorry, i am out of time. >> never took the steps to develop that conspiracy, sir. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman.

the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you very much. my condolences to the family as well. i am not going to be asking you any questions, but i don't want you to interpret that as being unmindful of your pain and sacrifice on that. i hope you accept it as such. i would like to talk to the three special agents on this and go back. first of all, i do suspect the mexican government understands that there are guns coming from the united states into mexico. mexican ambassador stated clearly that he thinksuns in the united states impeding violence and overwhelming fire power is being unleashed by drug traffickers. i think they are quite aware of that. but before the fast and furious became the policy we are all seriously questioning now, was it the project gun runner, the policy of the government in 2006 and 2009? >> project gun runner was a funding source that led to staffing, many groups on the

southwest border offices with agents. project gun runner was preceded by something they referred to as operation southbound. and what that did, we identified straw buyers through the cooperation of gun dealers or through reviewing documents of past firearms purases, and then we would go out and do car stops and interdictions. many of those interdictions, there were no prosecutions for threasons stated earlier, but the point was that we lawfully seized weapons based on probable cause and those wouldn't hurt anybody. there were times a gun dealer was suspicious of a person, we would stop them, that person was a law abiding citizen. they went on the way with their lawfully purchased firearm and their apology. but if they were criminals, the gunsere in our custody whether they went to jail or not and they never hurt a soul. >> were there weapons still making it to mexico? >> absolutely. it is the nature of straw purchasing. a straw purchaser is someone who is legitimate.

if the gun dealer makes that sale and that person hands it off to somebody that brings it to mexico, we have no way of knowing that until the gun is recovered in mexico. >> you're familiar with the i can na dozian case? >> i was supervisor in that case. >> you were unhappy with that result? >> extremely. >> in that case, did the judge make determination that essentially -- he threw the case out after eight days of trial on the premise that there was no proof that the ultimate person that got the gun was a person not allowed or lawfully in possession? >> correct. what he was stating we couldn't prove he was supplying. that wasn't the allegation or nature of the case. again that's why after that happened i tried to present this to the united states attorney's office in new york, incredible for doing international narcotics cases. had we had one wire transfer in that district, i am convinced we would have had a successful

prosecution there. >> do you think there's hesitation on federal prosecutors because they think somehow pursuing these could be interpreted as looking to violate somebody's second amendment rights? >> no, sir. >> that's not causing the inertia on the part of the prosecutors? >> i would have to agree that no. >> so if a person goes into a store, gun store, and buys two, three, four hand guns, does federal law require them to report that? >> yes, sir. >> if i were a person went into a store, bought four or five long guns? >> no such requirement, sir. >> what if i went in, you're familiar with the romanian aks? >> yes. >> fair to say those are high amount or large proportion of guns going to mexico constitute

aks. >> absutely. >> they are coming from romania to this country, doctored up and changed and move on to mexico? >> yes, sir. >> if i bought any of those, store owner doesn't have to report that. >> no. >> if that was reported, would that be something you would investigate? >> it is my opinion like we monitor money going through the mideast and how much sudafed people buy in a pharmacy because it is used to make methamphetamine, not everyone that buys a gun is a criminal, but it is an indicator why are they buying seven aks. we don't know about the sales unless we have acooperative dealer calling us saying something is not right, or b, one of the weapons is found at a crime scene and traced to the individual and we pull the paperwork manually from the gun dealer. >> any law enforcement reason or rationale why we would not want

that information reported? >> multiple sale of long arms like remaining aks. >> i can only give personal opinion. it would be good indicator, much like it is handguns. >> you can't think of any reason not to have it reported, wouldn't interfere with law enforcement efforts if it was reported? >> in my opinion it would help our efforts, sir. >> the gentleman's time expired. gentleman from texts, regnized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i, too, would like to express condolences to the terry family, the district i represent includes brownsville where the family of a special agent resides as well, and they are going through some pain similar to what you guys are going through very possibly as a result of ill conceived policies by the atf. i did have a couple of questions for the gentleman here from the

agency, and appreciate your courage in testifying and want to assure you that i think i speak for the bulk of this committee that we really appreciate your courage in coming out. certainly it would be a bad thing if there were to be any repercussions. my question, in your testimony you were talking about you had followedhat straw buyer from the gu store and it would stop. did you all ever go beyond the firsthandoff of that weapon to trace them to where they were going? >> not really, no. many a times what we would do is we would have the information beforehand where they would call the ffl and say hey, we are coming by to pick up 10 or 15 of these riflesthen they would notify the case agent and we would gin surveillance. we would often go to the stra purchaser's house, catch him before he leaves there, catch him as he meets an individual at a car wash or whatever to get moy.

>> you didn't follow that individual, move it up the chain. if you were out to make a case against people higher in the chain, wouldn't the next logical step have been following the gun? >> that would be very logical. after he purchased firearms and delivered to another parking lot, and special agent cox and i took pictures of them going from one vehicle to another, we had to follow the straw purchaser back to his house while knew the other guns were going the other way on the highway. i can't tell you the logic. >> we were given direction by the case agent or group supervisor. we were literally pulled off surveillances. we would make requests after a straw purchase exchange had taken place, we requested hey, this is a good opportunity to seize the firearms from unknown person, plus identify the unknown person, plus might be able to move up the chain. we were told point blank time and time again, absolutely not, no. >> i apologize for goinfast, i have limited time. you said you built a tracking

device from stuff you bought at radio shack and you had one out of thousands of weapons, one that the agency provided for you that ran out of battery, is that correct? >> to my knowledge there was just the one, yes, sir. >> if you were trying to track guns, wouldn't a logical way be to embed a tracking device in the gun or packaging. >> when the statement was made we were trying to track firearms, we were trying to track where they were used. >> this is going to the mexican drug cartel involved in multiple murders, potentially bringing bigger charges against straw men for a bigger conspiracy, you would want to see everybody involved in that conspiracy. >> most definitely, sir. what i would have done, i would have landed on straw purchasers and before long i would have had that information for you. >> all right. so let me ask you this. the policy we have just following them and quitting, do you see any rationale behind that? could you come up with any reason we were stoppin when we

were stopping? any theory at all? >> sir, i'll say this. for years when i first got to phoenix, i was supervising firearm trafficking investigations and we utilized trackers and did what you pointed out. we would make a car stop at the hand to hand exchange or we would seize the weapon if it got to a reasonable point we thought it might go to mexico. to answer your question, i sat on many times trying to figure out what the logic would be t let the firearms go to mexico and i can't think of a single logical reason why this strategy would work. >> and you're not aware of any cooperation with th mexican authorities or any of our intelligence agencies that might be tracking these beyond mexico or anything. >> i think if we were tracking them, we wouldn't see the tragic results we see when the guns are traced back from murder scenes. >> were you doing anything to identify the weapons other than recording serial numbers, test firing them, gathering

ballistics information or anything else? >> no. the firearms were being sold and like i said in most instances taken out of the country. i know once mexican government takes possession, assets in mexico examine them and i am not exactly sure. >> you work on the border. you realize mexico takes bringing guns into their country pretty seriously, taking a shotgun to gbird hunng there is an experience. >> yes, sir. >> this is something our friends, allies and neighbors would be very concerned about and we didn't bother to inform them. >> we did not. >> thank you very much. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chaman. i want to thank the special agents for appearing. we admire your courage and patriotism for doing that. my questions really are to the terry family. sorry, i know how difficult it was for opening statement. i will tell you now as i am in

the autumn of my life, i think unintended consequences of poor policies and procedures and failed strategies at some point somebody has to be held accountable fo these things, and as difficult as it may be for yourself and the terry family, if the person responsible were in the room now for operation fast and furious, what might you want to say to them. and please, i think it iso important for the public to understand the purpose of these heargs. while we are upset with the policies, it is important fo people to understand there is a loss of human life here. so it is more than just a strategy that failed, more than a faed policynd procedure, it is the loss of someone so near and dear to you. so your opportunity to do that. i would appreciate. >> well, it is tough. brian was an amazing kid. an amazingly brave kid that was

willing to put his life on the line. if that person were in the room, obviously we'd want him or her to accept responsibility. right now, looking back at this operation, it appears that it has cost the life of our brian. we hope and pray it's not going to result in any additional lives of u.s. law enforcement, but i don't know if we can truly -- if that's truly going to happen. those guns are out there. so beyond accepting responsibility for these decisions and we would be curious why did you feel this

was within that risk. i've heard from the atf agents here that even a mockup weapon normally would not have been allowed to walk during these operations, and an awful lot of weapons walked and we would be curious to find out why. >> anything to add? i don't know what i would say to them, but i would like to know what they would say to me. that's all i would say. >> well, it is difficult. i don't want to put you through any ofthis, but i think it is incredibly important because the fabric of your family has been torn and can't be put back together again. the purpose of these hearings really is to make sure nobody else has to go through the same

thing you have gone through. so i appreciate you being here. with that, mr. chairman -- >> you yield? >> the gentleman yields. thank you. >> i am going to follow a line of questioning i think i have been seeing velop here with law enforcement experts. you have two points, the old expression, you conne the dots. first point is the straw buyer, last point is the scene of the crime. you said each of you special agents as soon as you got to the ne point of connect the dots, you were sent the other direction. you ren't allowed to go the next direction or to the next point even when they headed north th the weapons. now, if an operation like fast and furious seems to have a pattern, a consistent pattern, that you're only looking for two points, the beginning and the end, it is not a criminal prosecution, it is not an effective one, plus, of course,

if you take the logic you can't prosecute a straw purchaser of guns in mexico if you take that point, then that part of it was frivolous from the start, even though today every one of those straw purchasers has been charged oddly enough with the evidence that was available before the gun ever walked beyond the first step. let me just ask a question for your accept sigs, but i think it is a well indicated one. if you only look at the dot, isn't it true guns go to mexico, could that be a political decision? could that be a decision that basically we want to substantiate guns in america go to mexico, something we all knew, but would have considerable political impact as mexico began to say yeah, we were even rolling up straw purchasers. it wouldn't change the fact mexica were dying at the bequest of the united states, but wouldn't it ultimately meet a political goal?

>> i imagine, sir, that it's possible. in this instance, i think it is more as i said earlier, a case agent that had a bad idea, a group supervisor who failed to reign her in, and the chain of command all the way up failed. >> but you would agree it doesn't meet any criminal goal, goal of prosecuting the way it wasandled? >> no, because you can't show the chain of how pieces of evidence went from point a to point b which you need to prove at trial. >> i hope it was just a terrible mistake. mr. clay recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, at this time i have no questions for this panel in the interest, i yield to mr. cummings. >> it seems to me that we do have -- something, some serious disconnect, and why that is, you know, i cann imagine. i am going to say to you all

that your testimony has been abundantly clear. but i want to for a moment go back to mrs. terry. you know, i often say right now i am preparing to do a eulogy saturday, one of the things i am thinking about as i sat here, i do believe part of life is death, but also part of death is life. and what i mean by that is that, you know, we can't fully understand why somebody would leave us so young. particularly somebody like your son, your relative, who was so full of courage and the fact that he was willing to basically

die for his country. we cannot always understand it. and i think we all struggle with it, particularly when it is a young person. but i can say this, that believdeep in my heart that some kind of way out of his death will come life. in other words, the mere fact that we're here right now, mr. hell yard, talking about this, the mere fact that this was not something that just shoved under the rug and moving on, the mere fact that there are probably already changes being made to this program, and i think it was you that said you wished you could -- you wished you could say this was the end of it, but there are guns still out there.

but at least -- and to the agents i say thi too, at leas now we are moving in a direction where hopefully we reverse this and save some lives. that's why i said, miss terry, sometimes out of death comes life, and it's nothing, nothing, nothing can -- i'm not trying to -- nothing can bring a person back, but you know, because i wrestle with the question. i wrestle with it all the time of why do so many of our best die young. that's why i said to you before, chairman issa asked a question a moment ago about cooperation in the justice department. i want to make it clear that i fought all my adult life trying to take guns, illegal guns out

of hands of folks, period. it was you, mr. pa sell ee, all of your testimony was brilliant. it was straightforward, no frills, just straight testimony. and that's why i appreciate so much. but what you said, i don't want us to lose sight of it. and even the chairman talked about it. these guns don't just end up in mexico, they end up in the united states, too, you know, and they are not jus killing people, used to kill people in mexico, it is happening everywhere in our streets. and some kind of way, some kind of way, i listen to senator grassley, he is right, we need to leave the political piece at the door and try to figure out how do we ad